No, its not wrong. I did post my reasons. Regardless, i'm not going to get into a p*ssing match with you because your an idiot. You only believe what you want to believe without ever posting any facts to back it up and then you force it upon other people. Whatever dude. You win.

In the McCartney bio by Peter Ames Carlin, Ringo was quoted as saying she, Heather, was a horrible person.

In the divorce proceedings she went through a laundry list of vicious attacks against Paul. Sure one never knows the truth behind a public persona, but I'm sure the list included allegations that didn't have the "where there is smoke, there is fire" sense about them.

Look, I know in a bitter divorce it should be hard to choose sides, even if you are emotionally invested as a fan in one of the two going through it, but to say trying to call a spade a spade (I ain't saying she's a gold digga) is ludicrous.

this is kinda silly, basically i wasn't there. and i'm not a pulp fiction kind of guy. end of story.

So...why are you on an internet message board if you think discussions like this are silly?

Well, the point is sure about certain aspects of the artists' personal private life, but if they write songs that are inspired by their loved ones, or hated ones in some cases, and if their lives are an open book to the public, than shouldn't discussions about that be just as much fair game as say what makes you like this song better than this other song?

Or at the very least, able to give answers that aren't pithy "This is childish and silly to even discuss " one sentence type of responses to people who give well documented examples of their dislike for Heather Mills, Linda McCartney, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, John Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, Jane Asher, Olivia Harrison, Barbara Bach or whomever else happens to catch the ire of fandom in a thread discussion.

Mel Gibson seems to have lost his mind but that's been evident for quite a while.

Well, yes we know this. But my point is 7 of 13 would have you believe that it's childish to say anything about it, or Mel, because we aren't there with Mel, and most of what has come out has been through "pulp fiction" writers in the media (same with Heather Mills FWIW, you think the author of the book I got the Ringo quote from just MADE it up?) and we don't know the full context of Mel's meltdowns since clearly it's coming from his ex's side.

To say nothing about the fact that if 7 of 13 wants to give Yoko passes because all we know is a very public side of her (and a ton of stuff from anti-Yoko camps from Juillian Lennon to Paul McCartney), shouldn't we then give Mel a pass, and in some sense sympathy if you want to say he's mentally unbalanced or whatever and not say that he is a disgusting human being, even if what he said is factual.

So...why are you on an internet message board if you think discussions like this are silly?

pretending to know the Real John Lennon is quite... errr.... really kinda dumb if you ask me. pay attention next time you listen to one of his songs. irrelevant to the extreme my friend.

Quote

Well, the point is sure about certain aspects of the artists' personal private life, but if they write songs that are inspired by their loved ones, or hated ones in some cases, and if their lives are an open book to the public, than shouldn't discussions about that be just as much fair game as say what makes you like this song better than this other song?

right. i stop right there, knowing very little about artistic integrity and such. in case you have not noticed, most politicians are weasels and theifs, put away the crystal ball. who or what ever told you that their really personal life is an open book, that is a rather irrational statement to make right here. for example how much do you really know about other rock stars. let's start with eric clapton and black sabbath. or johnny cash for that matter.

Quote

Or at the very least, able to give answers that aren't pithy "This is childish and silly to even discuss " one sentence type of responses to people who give well documented examples of their dislike for Heather Mills, Linda McCartney, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, John Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, Jane Asher, Olivia Harrison, Barbara Bach or whomever else happens to catch the ire of fandom in a thread discussion.

right. here's the dealio... i tend to disagree, i have better things to do.

But my point is 7 of 13 would have you believe that it's childish to say anything about it, or Mel, because we aren't there with Mel, and most of what has come out has been through "pulp fiction" writers in the media

Steve, your wasting your time with 7 of 13. He hasent given a single intelligent rebuttal or response to a debate or question since he's been on this forum. Not one. Its like trying to reason with a 2 year old. The Beatles are some of the most famous people in modern history and tons and tons of historical documentation and interviews have been presented, but we're all supposed to ignore that because it must have all been submitted by 'pulp fiction' writers in the media. Other members take that stance too and i've just never understood it. No, I wasnt there, but if a hundred people that were there wrote the same thing, then I would tend to believe it. Not so for some. I wasnt around when George Washington was alive, but I believe he was a real person and the first president of the United States. 7 of 13 would question it though.

Now like a prog song, 7 of 13 will post a repsonse that will be too long and not make any sense, but in his own little world it'll be above everybody else's ability to comprehend it.

Look Im not stupid enough to think theres no truth in all the books, of course there is, but we had this fruitcake nada surf recently who basically worshipped the ground Fred Seaman walked on and kept telling us to read all about J & Y as his version was gospel, and tbh its bollocks, yes some would have been factual and some 'revelationary' to help sell the book and cover publishing costs, what about Albert Goldstein, or Donald friggin Duck, were there versions of the truth 'real' ? was John gay ?

Yes we can form our own view of personalities from all the books as some say the same thing about the subjects, in the end its all about how we perceive the Johns and Pauls stories.There are some famous people who socialised with the Lennons (and knew them well) during the Dakota years and described them as lovely warm & friendly couple, then there is Albert & Fred who would have you believe she was the wicked witch of the north and John was a mad raving lunatic, who you believe is up to you I guess.

When I have opinions of anybody in the Lennon camp, trust me when I say its not due to Seaman or Goldstein. I've never read either of their books. I base my opinion on other sources. Believe it or not, other people have said a few negative things about John and Yucko including the other members of the Beatles. Like you said, who you believe us up to you.

When Paul says that Yoko approcahed him first for money and a relationship, I believe that. Everybody (especially 7 of 13) wants to lean on the belief that the unicorns were spreading sugar on her and Johns relationship and I think (know) the b**** had an agenda. As for John, well everybody knows how I feel about him.

It's now a story. I think John's 40 years were pretty intense. He had some pretty sh*tty times and didn't always keep the best of company or get into the best situations. But along with all that roughness it seemed that when he was in a good place then the people around him would also benefit from him being in that good place.

We don't know the half of what went on and I think it's a bit p*ss poor quality to expect to be entitled to know all, some people are dead, but also some are still living. I guess it's still important to some people but it shouldn't matter to us very much all. It'll still be just celebrity gossip. Still a story.

No, I wasnt there, but if a hundred people that were there wrote the same thing, then I would tend to believe it. Not so for some.

yes, but not when you have not one shard of corroborating evidence. it's like blaming the victim game, or that happy chocolate thing. i tend to posh shuffle anyway, yes.

Quote

7 of 13 would question it though.

of course i would. it's only commonsense.. besides honestly i'm a gotta see it with my own two eyes "faries wear boots" kinda guy, in case you have not yet noticed. but i will say that what you have stated here does make more sense, my responses, though well thought out, do seem to be rather inappropriate and redikleous at times, for the most part.

Quote

Now like a prog song, 7 of 13 will post a repsonse that will be too long and not make any sense, but in his own little world it'll be above everybody else's ability to comprehend it.

When I have opinions of anybody in the Lennon camp, trust me when I say its not due to Seaman or Goldstein. I've never read either of their books. I base my opinion on other sources. Believe it or not, other people have said a few negative things about John and Yucko including the other members of the Beatles. Like you said, who you believe us up to you.

When Paul says that Yoko approcahed him first for money and a relationship, I believe that. Everybody (especially 7 of 13) wants to lean on the belief that the unicorns were spreading sugar on her and Johns relationship and I think (know) the b**** had an agenda. As for John, well everybody knows how I feel about him.

mmkay... fine.. let's get beyond that. i don't like disagreeing as much as the next guy, that much is really true for the most part.